32 or 64bit Vista?

[chrestomanci]

64

Set up a dual boot -XP for 32 bit and current games, Vista 64 for titting around with and future games.

Will the licencing and activation let you do that?

I was under the impresson that if you have more than one windows install in a dual boot or virtual machine system, microsoft considers that as seperate systems requring seperate licences.

[kalniel]

Will the licencing and activation let you do that?

I was under the impresson that if you have more than one windows install in a dual boot or virtual machine system, microsoft considers that as seperate systems requring seperate licences.

Correct - but as he (and I) will have a license for each of XP and Vista it's no problem. Both OS's will require seperate activation.

[Hottentot]

Will the licencing and activation let you do that?

I was under the impresson that if you have more than one windows install in a dual boot or virtual machine system, microsoft considers that as seperate systems requring seperate licences.

If you wish to keep the two OSes completely separate you can install them on different drives, disable the XP drive before you install Vista and it will never know XP was there. It is a bit of a fiddle as you have to enable/disable the drives in the BIOS but it can be done. Technically you would not classify it as a dual boot since only one OS would be available each time the PC boots up.

[kalniel]

If you wish to keep the two OSes completely separate you can install them on different drives, disable the XP drive before you install Vista and it will never know XP was there. It is a bit of a fiddle as you have to enable/disable the drives in the BIOS but it can be done. Technically you would not classify it as a dual boot since only one OS would be available each time the PC boots up.

But you'd still require a license for Vista and a license for XP, so I don't see what's different

[Mike Fishcake]

I'm going along with the others that said they're waiting for SP1. I've been using a final release version of Vista Enterprise at work, and there are just too many issues with programs we use not working.

Not saying it's Vista's 'fault' but we're going to have to wait for more thorough compatibility before using it, and I'd be tempted to stick with XP at home as well, at least for a year. Even though it looks and feels lovely

(although I am looking forward more to Mac OS Leopard)

[Hottentot]

True but it depends where you are starting from, most people will be upgrading an existing PC from Windows XP. It would be a brave person who jumps into Vista 64 as their only OS. Also it depends which flavour OEM,upgrade or full retail version of Vista you will be purchasing.

[Weetabix]

how about after reading this?

http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase...sta_ff_x64.asp

I had no problems with RC2 x64. Hell, I only had to install my x-fi drivers. I don't really see there being a driver problem with common devices.

[badass]

64 bit, when the support's there. The more than 4GB RAM is too much of a temptation

[koocha]

Got this from http://winsupersite.com/reviews/winvista_07.asp

I've already harped on this in other parts of the review, but let me restate the obvious here: Windows Vista was supposed to usher in an era of 64-bit computing, and while this could still happen, it's not going to happen in 2007. Thanks to widespread software incompatibilities that will take some time to overcome, the more secure and scalable x64 versions of Windows Vista will be useless to most users for at least the next year. I'll re-examine this constantly, but for now, x64 is a non-starter despite an admirable job by Microsoft to ensure that the x64 versions are otherwise identical to the 32-bit versions.

[ExceededGoku]

I ordered 64 bit merely from seeing all of the games with support for it (namely Crysis, Half life 2/CSS/etc and doubtless more). 64 bit also always seems that little bit smoother.. with the right drivers of course

[Dorza]

64-bit = A pointless headache causing experience for pure home use; thats with out getting Vista specific drivers. It will remain that way until developers get to grips with Vista and can settle them selves down to develop for 64b.

The advantages 64b offers over 32 bit compared to the advantages 32b had over 16b are minimal at best. The average home user just doesn't need to access more than 4GB of memory right now.


I'll be going 32-bit until the time is right.

[Paul Adams]

I've gone for 64-bit, as I have been using XP x64 for a long time on my home-built systems - even those with under 2GB of RAM.

The main gain for me is the kernel patch protection and enforced signing of drivers - any application that doesn't work correctly on 64-bit versions of Windows was most likely not written correctly (hard-coded for certain paths or registry value locations most typically).

Drivers I have not had a problem with, even in XP x64 - though I don't have much in the way of exotic devices to worry about, and tend to make do with the onboard 5.1 audio chipset.

And I figure that if I can get my home system working nicely the 64-bit version then anything I can overcome in that would make the 32-bit version a walkover

Biggest issue for me is browser plugins that are only available in 32-bit versions, but then we can use the 32-bit version of IE also for compatibility to get round that.

Conversely, I am actually trying to avoid a headache in the future as it's not possible to upgrade from 32-bit to 64-bit - you have to do a clean install.

Driver support should get better in the future as (I believe) manufacturers have to provide both 32-bit and 64-bit versions of their drivers for the device/software to be considered "Vista ready".

[ikonia]

You raise interesting questions about plugin compatability for browsers.

I'm surprised we've not seen more smaller applications such as firefox being released or re-written for 64bit mode. Granted there is no real advantage, apart from not having to install multiple arch applications.

The firefox versions for none windows based systems that are 64bit are just the 32bit application rebuilt, its certainly not that I'm aware of optimised for 64bit.

(I'm just using firefox as an example).

Whats the current status of microsoft applications, such as Office 2007 for example - is there a 64bit version of that or will it be 32bit only ?

[dangel]

64 bit for me - because i know i'm going to rebuild with 4 gig of RAM before long (2gig isn't going to be enough for some games under Vista methinks).

[directhex]

depends on the distro. 64-bit firefox on some distributions (e.g. debian & ubuntu) is really 64-bit - which means no useful plugins like flash or java

the reason for repackaging of 32-bit firefoxes in 64-bit distros is to avoid the plugin question

[chrestomanci]

depends on the distro. 64-bit firefox on some distributions (e.g. debian & ubuntu) is really 64-bit - which means no useful plugins like flash or java

the reason for repackaging of 32-bit firefoxes in 64-bit distros is to avoid the plugin question

I am running 64 Bit ubuntu at home. directcthex is right is that flash plugins don't work in 64 bit browsers, though 64 bit java works fine. Most of the time this is not a problem as flash is mostly used for adverts, and I can do without them.

My solution is to maintain a 32bit chroot environment (similar to a virtual machine emulation) and in that I have installed 32 bit applictions like firefox, and some media convierters that don't have stable 64 bit versions. The chroot environemt is fast and stable, and I rarely have issues with the 32 bit apps running inside.

However, because of the complexity setting it up, and the fact that incompatible applications make it necessary, I don't want to move to 64 bit windows untill things are a lot more mature. Under linux most applications can be re-compiled for 64 bit, but under windows applications are closed source so that option is not avalable.